You don't pay 30% extra. You pay some smaller portion, because the 30% only comes out of the paid apps. The value you get from free apps which you wouldn't get if someone else had to cover the costs.
Think about it:
1. We don't have to worry about searching for an app. We can find the apps without all the SEO or anything, and they are all in one place.
2. Defending their trademark (fake apps don't exist in the App Store). How awful would it be if you searched Google for Bank of America iPhone App, you
Android has always allowed competing app stores, and you can even change a security setting yourself and just download apps directly from the web (just like how it works on a real computer). Amazingly, the sky has not fallen. In the face of Android already proving it can work, Apple's argument is just control freak bullshit.
I still however, do not want to see government intervene in that situation.
Sometimes Uncle Sam has to get out the belt, because businesses don't always play fair. See the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act [wikipedia.org], as an example from the automotive industry.
I prefer they "get out the belt" using the judicial system, rather than through enactment of more laws. Also, Android has not had as great an experience with Apps as iOS has. That much is clear.
Also, Android has not had as great an experience with Apps as iOS has. That much is clear.
I can get apps for my Android devices that would be unthinkable on iOS. Sure, that potentially opens the door for abuse, but I'm a grown man and last I checked the smartphone/tablet is mine, not Apples or Googles. I should be the one to decide what risks I' willing to take.
Itâ(TM)s not that they wouldnâ(TM)t have a choice. Itâ(TM)s that the choices become bad. Use your banking app or the eBay app or your car insurance app, provided those apps siphon all your data, or do not use the app at all is how the choices would fall. Apple forces app developers to make the apps work, work well, and keep to the scope they are advertised as being rather than do a bunch of data mining in the background. Given the two alternative choices, I prefer Apples cleanup of code.
but I'm a grown man and last I checked the smartphone/tablet is mine
And you get to use your phone within the bounds of what the vendor (Apple or Google) promised you. Nothing more. They promised you a piece of hardware with the certain capabilities that you got. Don't like it, buy something else. No vendor in the world is forced to open up their entire platform to you simply because you bought the device.
And you get to use your phone within the bounds of what the vendor (Apple or Google) promised you. Nothing more.
Alas, poor Slashdot. I remember it well.
Was a time when slashdot would unite against being told what we can do with the devices we bought. Guess those days are over. So much for news for nerds. Now it's news for lames.
No vendor in the world is forced to open up their entire platform to you simply because you bought the device.
And you think that's great. TREAD ME HARDER DADDY.
Was a time when slashdot would unite against being told what we can do with the devices we bought.
Indeed. I too would like to live in a free open fantasy world where the source for everything is available and I have the ability to run Linux on my car's dashboard. But the reality is your ideas have really only been supported on Slashdot in special cases.
And you think that's great. TREAD ME HARDER DADDY.
Welcome to the world. I'm amazed you made it this far without realising how it works. Maybe you can make a completely open source phone for all of us to benefit.
Alas, poor Slashdot. I remember it well. Was a time when slashdot would unite against being told what we can do with the devices we bought. Guess those days are over.
You are lamenting the day where Slashdot had more groupthink than it does today? And based on your moderation so do many other Slashdotters. Seems like an odd perspective to me, even though I otherwise agree with your stance on this issue.
What Apple has here is even worse than Microsoft's Palladium initiative, which slashdot railed against at the time. Yet here we are, overloaded with iFans that worship Apple like a deity, and they'll love locked down systems just because Apple says so.
But you're objecting to people trying to find a way to suck less dick. I understand the impulse to allow mature consenting developers to bargain away their rights, but North Dakota is a nice small laboratory to see how things work with the state taking the side of the consumer.
My suspicion is that this law is prompted by the nonavailability of a Parler app, rather than any genuine concern for consumer welfare. But maybe I am being unfair to North Dakota.
But you're objecting to people trying to find a way to suck less dick.
Nope. I'm not objecting to anything. I'm realistically telling you the way the world works. If we all want to join hands and sing kumbaya like a happy little open community then I'm all for it. If you ever manage to find this mythical fantasy land invite me along. I have zero objections.
But when you wake from your dream you'll find jet more corporate dick waiting for you for another round. Welcome to the world.
My suspicion is that this law is prompted by the nonavailability of a Parler app, rather than any genuine concern for consumer welfare. But maybe I am being unfair to North Dakota.
There are many roads to progress, and the enemies of bad ideas often have strange bedfellows.
I, for one, would welcome seeing something positive come of out parler. It's highly in debt to society at this point.
New bills which might become laws change the way the world works. No one is denying the world is a particular way (in certain aspects), so you are preaching to the choir in that regard.
You are replying to "this should happen" by "this is happening today". Makes no sense.
I don't disagree, but telling corporations what they can and can't do with their products is not a view entirely compatible with capitalism so you're treading on thin ice there.
Regulation is always about telling people what they can't do. You can't dump radioactive waste into the water table, you can't pump lead into the air, you can't sell people a car that doesn't work without either telling them it doesn't work or trying to fix it. I quite like the idea of telling companies that they can't force their customers to only buy from the company store. I also like the idea of forcing companies to not artificially restrict people from repairing their products. Regulation is not always
Exactly, and I for one am in favour of complete legal immunity for jailbreaking and abolishing of the DMCA. But the OP's idea that you can tell a company that they must allow other people to install software on their device is a bridge too far.
Indeed. That's my point. A customer should be free to do what they want without threat of persecution, but at the same time the vendor should be free to deliver a device to a customer with functionality that isn't dictated by the government.
The happy medium is not persecuting a user for attempting to hack or publishing how to hack the device they bought, and for that we need to revoke the DMCA.
I can get apps for my Android devices that would be unthinkable on iOS. Sure, that potentially opens the door for abuse, but I'm a grown man and last I checked the smartphone/tablet is mine, not Apples or Googles. I should be the one to decide what risks I' willing to take.
I'm not only a grown man, I have actually been developing software for money for almost 40 years. And I tell you, I have no intention to put up with that shit of having to be careful what I put on my phone and what not. My time is too valuable for that.
Exactly. Law passes... and people can reduce risk by using app store for all the software (and it needs to be all), or not.
Actually an incentive for Big Fruit to tighten the walled garden a bit further and only accept user-friendly apps - so no ruler apps that need location and contacts.
There apps that have legitimate uses for such data. And every single one of them can clearly explain in two or three sentences what the data is used for and why I should allow it. Period.
Yeah but its not going to shield them from a million articles about a new app that roots your iPhone and sends child pornography to your contacts. Sure, in paragraph 10 it says the app is only available to people who use the "OBVIOUS HACKER APPSTORE" but the fact is that it will be spread around as proof that apples platform is dangerous and in every way just as much the Wild West as android.
This is all and good except when people bring their devices to an Apple store and demand a refund because the phone doesn't work because it is full of malware, viruses, trackers, and other dangerous software.
If your time is too valuable, you won't even stumble upon those alternative app stores. You actually have to put in effort for that. Argument struck down.
I'm not only a grown man, I have actually been developing software for money for almost 40 years. And I tell you, I have no intention to put up with that shit of having to be careful what I put on my phone and what not. My time is too valuable for that.
I've been in IT and security for over 20 years, and I can tell you that you can't depend on anyone *else* to be careful for you. Sure, it can be an extra layer of defense in depth, but you can't depend on it.
On the other hand, as a grown man, you should be able to decide for yourself who you trust and what balance of risk vs. convenience is acceptable to you.
You can do whatever you want with your Android phone. Android phones have, what, 80% of the worldwide market? So why not let Apple be Apple and let the other 20% live however they want to live?
Because when Apple is permitted to get away with anti-consumer practices, Samsung decides that that's ok now and follows suit. And suddenly you're not just talking about Apple.
I prefer they "get out the belt" using the judicial system, rather than through enactment of more laws. Also, Android has not had as great an experience with Apps as iOS has. That much is clear.
It is rather hard for the judicial system to get involved until there is a law to enforce.
Indeed, so I wonder why the bill also aims at Android. (Although Android One may be an exception, I think Google was trying to close down sideloads.)
That being said, all the competing stores for Android are terrible. The Amazon Store is small, often out of date, and full of spam and questionable apps. APKMirror is just a copy of the Google Store. F-Droid does at least serve an open source nice that is distinct. All other stores are strictly worse.
Yeah I'm confused by that, too... while the other stores on Android may be terrible, you don't have to use a store at all on Android anymore than you have to on a PC.
This is coming from North Dakota, one of the reddest states in the nation. Most likely this is aimed at punishing Apple and Google for delisting Parler, and the author is trying to be sneaky and conceal his Trump-derived motivation.
1. Looks to be a correlation between a politican and the people they represent. 2. Politicians are not great at being sneaky. 3. Parler is not Trump. Neither was it hate; hate speech was always modded off the platform --in spite of what the msm fed you. Parler represents resistence to the mass suppression of free speech.
If people want to talk about election results they should be able to. D'uh. Open platform like Parler allows for audit, so it's easy for police to police it should some nimwits strive for vi
Android has always allowed competing app stores, and you can even change a security setting yourself and just download apps directly from the web (just like how it works on a real computer). Amazingly, the sky has not fallen. In the face of Android already proving it can work, Apple's argument is just control freak bullshit.
One thing that might be good to do is to get Apple customer's input on this.
What is being lost by not allowing them to install software from anywhere?
Do they care? The customers I know rather like the vetting and the one stop shopping.
As for Android - I believe that if you want to install software from a North Korean website that you know harvests your credit card info, well, go ahead. It's a different culture.
As an Apple customer, advocate, and stockholder I want device security, privacy, and choice. Parler wasn't booted for any of those reasons. Apple made a huge tactical error IMO.
Sometimes Uncle Sam has to get out the belt, because businesses don't always play fair. See the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act [wikipedia.org], as an example from the automotive industry.
While I don't disagree about the value of regulation and trust-busting in preserving a healthy free market, it's really astonishing to see the political reorganization happening in real time right in front of our eyes. We see the right wing arguing for tariffs and trying to use government power to directly control business policies and even shut them down directly (see TikTok), while we see major companies from every sector coming out in rejection of right-wing authoritarianism, standing up for environmenta
iOS apps have to be vetted because there's only one proper layer of protection on iOS to stop apps from misbehaving. The iOS Sandbox provides all of the constraints using predefined mandatory access controls and a few helper processes. Any mistakes in this layer will cause a compromise across all apps. You can see how flimsy this can be by examining the large list of things Apple does not allow in sandboxed apps. Apple's sandbox is fantastic on macOS but is overstretched on iOS/iPadOS. Apple has every reason to be paranoid.
By comparison, with Android, the following protections are applied:
* Separate UIDs per application (so all UNIX-style DAC applies)
* Separate GIDs per permission (so the process has to be in specific groups)
* A fully fleshed out SELinux policy to constrain every process regardless of DAC
* seccomp-bpf system call restrictions on much newer Android versions block unnecessary system calls
I regularly crap on Linux for its poor IO scheduling and responsiveness under load but unlike iOS, Android uses multiple overlapping layers to constrain apps even when they are known to be malicious. iOS by comparison depends upon centralised controls by Apple to work properly.
iOS apps have to be vetted because there's only one proper layer of protection on iOS to stop apps from misbehaving. The iOS Sandbox provides all of the constraints using predefined mandatory access controls and a few helper processes. Any mistakes in this layer will cause a compromise across all apps. You can see how flimsy this can be by examining the large list of things Apple does not allow in sandboxed apps. Apple's sandbox is fantastic on macOS but is overstretched on iOS/iPadOS. Apple has every reason to be paranoid.
By comparison, with Android, the following protections are applied:
* Separate UIDs per application (so all UNIX-style DAC applies)
* Separate GIDs per permission (so the process has to be in specific groups)
* A fully fleshed out SELinux policy to constrain every process regardless of DAC
* seccomp-bpf system call restrictions on much newer Android versions block unnecessary system calls
I regularly crap on Linux for its poor IO scheduling and responsiveness under load but unlike iOS, Android uses multiple overlapping layers to constrain apps even when they are known to be malicious. iOS by comparison depends upon centralised controls by Apple to work properly.
Please explain to me then, kind sir, why my friends and coworkers Android phones are always ending up with spyware and miners and shit on them, while my friends, family and coworkers with iPhones simply don't understand why this situation exists to begin with? The only thing I can come up with is a No True Scotsman - all these phones must just be shitty Android phones and thus aren't representative of the One True Android that apparently "proves that the market forces work as intended" by the Good People th
Then you and your friends are stupid for burying your heads in the sand. There's been many wide spread malware found. Many of the white hat hackers had to admit to what they were doing before getting kicked off the store! Lol
Unlike Android, only Appl can scan all apps for malware, making it much harder to detect. Even then, i find it amusing that spybot search and destroy has a i os section.
https://blog.malwarebytes.com/... [malwarebytes.com]
https://www.google.com/url?sa=... [google.com]
Perfect is the enemy of good. Just because there are some problems, does not mean it's a disaster worthy of government intervention. There are malware and viruses for the MacOS platform but your risk on MacOS is still wildly disproportionate to your risk on Windows.
That's because unlike iOS, Android allows you to install spyware and miners if that's what you want to do. iOS blocks anything not notarised by Apple, full stop. That's a pretty bulletproof way to not get malware but it isn't perfect. There have been instances of iOS malware distributed in the App Store in the past which resulted in big problems for users. Apple are pretty damn responsive and put an end to issues quite quickly but their sandbox is still vastly inferior to the Android one.
You do realize you just made apples point right? Hell you dont have to even go outside the Play store to find malicious android apps. I think the easy button would be for apple to allow for side-loading where you have to specifically enable it, maybe for 30min, to install your app. That would probably solve that with fewer risks. But I think apple should have the right to charge a FEE if some idiot calls in about a 3rd party payment where he got ripped off and it wasnt theough the apple store. I see no rea
Machines take me by surprise with great frequency.
- Alan Turing
Apple (Score:2, Informative)
Apple wants you to think paying 30% extra is a necessity. It is clearly not.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-44Nh_QkrQ
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
Think about it:
1. We don't have to worry about searching for an app. We can find the apps without all the SEO or anything, and they are all in one place.
2. Defending their trademark (fake apps don't exist in the App Store). How awful would it be if you searched Google for Bank of America iPhone App, you
Re:Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Android has always allowed competing app stores, and you can even change a security setting yourself and just download apps directly from the web (just like how it works on a real computer). Amazingly, the sky has not fallen. In the face of Android already proving it can work, Apple's argument is just control freak bullshit.
I still however, do not want to see government intervene in that situation.
Sometimes Uncle Sam has to get out the belt, because businesses don't always play fair. See the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act [wikipedia.org], as an example from the automotive industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, Android has not had as great an experience with Apps as iOS has. That much is clear.
I can get apps for my Android devices that would be unthinkable on iOS. Sure, that potentially opens the door for abuse, but I'm a grown man and last I checked the smartphone/tablet is mine, not Apples or Googles. I should be the one to decide what risks I' willing to take.
Re: Apple (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
but I'm a grown man and last I checked the smartphone/tablet is mine
And you get to use your phone within the bounds of what the vendor (Apple or Google) promised you. Nothing more. They promised you a piece of hardware with the certain capabilities that you got. Don't like it, buy something else. No vendor in the world is forced to open up their entire platform to you simply because you bought the device.
Re:Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
And you get to use your phone within the bounds of what the vendor (Apple or Google) promised you. Nothing more.
Alas, poor Slashdot. I remember it well.
Was a time when slashdot would unite against being told what we can do with the devices we bought. Guess those days are over. So much for news for nerds. Now it's news for lames.
No vendor in the world is forced to open up their entire platform to you simply because you bought the device.
And you think that's great. TREAD ME HARDER DADDY.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Was a time when slashdot would unite against being told what we can do with the devices we bought.
Indeed. I too would like to live in a free open fantasy world where the source for everything is available and I have the ability to run Linux on my car's dashboard. But the reality is your ideas have really only been supported on Slashdot in special cases.
And you think that's great. TREAD ME HARDER DADDY.
Welcome to the world. I'm amazed you made it this far without realising how it works. Maybe you can make a completely open source phone for all of us to benefit.
Re: (Score:1)
Alas, poor Slashdot. I remember it well. Was a time when slashdot would unite against being told what we can do with the devices we bought. Guess those days are over.
You are lamenting the day where Slashdot had more groupthink than it does today? And based on your moderation so do many other Slashdotters. Seems like an odd perspective to me, even though I otherwise agree with your stance on this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
"Let's see, how do I attack this position so the other iFanboys see how Apple-loving I am? I know! I'll call being pro-freedom groupthink!"
Re: Apple (Score:2)
They aren't paid. Which doesn't make it better.
Re: Apple (Score:2)
What Apple has here is even worse than Microsoft's Palladium initiative, which slashdot railed against at the time. Yet here we are, overloaded with iFans that worship Apple like a deity, and they'll love locked down systems just because Apple says so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, so have you. I'm just amazed that you were able to suck cock without realising it. Welcome to reality.
Re:Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
But you're objecting to people trying to find a way to suck less dick. I understand the impulse to allow mature consenting developers to bargain away their rights, but North Dakota is a nice small laboratory to see how things work with the state taking the side of the consumer.
My suspicion is that this law is prompted by the nonavailability of a Parler app, rather than any genuine concern for consumer welfare. But maybe I am being unfair to North Dakota.
Re: (Score:2)
But you're objecting to people trying to find a way to suck less dick.
Nope. I'm not objecting to anything. I'm realistically telling you the way the world works. If we all want to join hands and sing kumbaya like a happy little open community then I'm all for it. If you ever manage to find this mythical fantasy land invite me along. I have zero objections.
But when you wake from your dream you'll find jet more corporate dick waiting for you for another round. Welcome to the world.
Re: (Score:2)
My suspicion is that this law is prompted by the nonavailability of a Parler app, rather than any genuine concern for consumer welfare. But maybe I am being unfair to North Dakota.
There are many roads to progress, and the enemies of bad ideas often have strange bedfellows.
I, for one, would welcome seeing something positive come of out parler. It's highly in debt to society at this point.
Re: Apple (Score:2)
New bills which might become laws change the way the world works. No one is denying the world is a particular way (in certain aspects), so you are preaching to the choir in that regard.
You are replying to "this should happen" by "this is happening today". Makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
So yeah, I didnt realize it. Probably because all the cocks are in your mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
No vendor in the world is forced to open up their entire platform to you simply because you bought the device.
They should be required to. That is the only moral thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree, but telling corporations what they can and can't do with their products is not a view entirely compatible with capitalism so you're treading on thin ice there.
Re: Apple (Score:2)
Regulation is always about telling people what they can't do. You can't dump radioactive waste into the water table, you can't pump lead into the air, you can't sell people a car that doesn't work without either telling them it doesn't work or trying to fix it. I quite like the idea of telling companies that they can't force their customers to only buy from the company store. I also like the idea of forcing companies to not artificially restrict people from repairing their products. Regulation is not always
Re: (Score:2)
And you get to use your phone within the bounds of what the vendor (Apple or Google) promised you. Nothing more.
This is why jailbreaking/rooting is a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, and I for one am in favour of complete legal immunity for jailbreaking and abolishing of the DMCA. But the OP's idea that you can tell a company that they must allow other people to install software on their device is a bridge too far.
Re: Apple (Score:2)
Whose device? Once a customer has bought it they should be able to install whatever they want on it, because at that point it's their device.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. That's my point. A customer should be free to do what they want without threat of persecution, but at the same time the vendor should be free to deliver a device to a customer with functionality that isn't dictated by the government.
The happy medium is not persecuting a user for attempting to hack or publishing how to hack the device they bought, and for that we need to revoke the DMCA.
Re:Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
I can get apps for my Android devices that would be unthinkable on iOS. Sure, that potentially opens the door for abuse, but I'm a grown man and last I checked the smartphone/tablet is mine, not Apples or Googles. I should be the one to decide what risks I' willing to take.
I'm not only a grown man, I have actually been developing software for money for almost 40 years. And I tell you, I have no intention to put up with that shit of having to be careful what I put on my phone and what not. My time is too valuable for that.
Re:Apple (Score:5, Informative)
App store or not. Your choice... (Score:3)
Exactly. Law passes... and people can reduce risk by using app store for all the software (and it needs to be all), or not.
Actually an incentive for Big Fruit to tighten the walled garden a bit further and only accept user-friendly apps - so no ruler apps that need location and contacts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but its not going to shield them from a million articles about a new app that roots your iPhone and sends child pornography to your contacts. Sure, in paragraph 10 it says the app is only available to people who use the "OBVIOUS HACKER APPSTORE" but the fact is that it will be spread around as proof that apples platform is dangerous and in every way just as much the Wild West as android.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but its not going to shield them from a million articles about a new app that roots your iPhone and sends child pornography to your contacts.
Does that happen to you often on Android? Or even on your computer where you can run/download whatever programs you want?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And, yet, even iOS apps are not without shame. Some nasty stuff out there, from privacy compromises to outright fraudulent apps, form time to time.
No platform is perfect.
Re: (Score:1)
If your time is too valuable, you won't even stumble upon those alternative app stores. You actually have to put in effort for that. Argument struck down.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not only a grown man, I have actually been developing software for money for almost 40 years. And I tell you, I have no intention to put up with that shit of having to be careful what I put on my phone and what not. My time is too valuable for that.
I've been in IT and security for over 20 years, and I can tell you that you can't depend on anyone *else* to be careful for you. Sure, it can be an extra layer of defense in depth, but you can't depend on it.
On the other hand, as a grown man, you should be able to decide for yourself who you trust and what balance of risk vs. convenience is acceptable to you.
Re: Apple (Score:1)
So what's the problem? (Score:2)
Re: So what's the problem? (Score:2)
Because when Apple is permitted to get away with anti-consumer practices, Samsung decides that that's ok now and follows suit. And suddenly you're not just talking about Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer they "get out the belt" using the judicial system, rather than through enactment of more laws. Also, Android has not had as great an experience with Apps as iOS has. That much is clear.
It is rather hard for the judicial system to get involved until there is a law to enforce.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't kid yourself. It's rather hard to get the judicial system involved even when there is a law to enforce.
The federal courts these days are actively hostile to civil suits, especially when it's individuals against large corporations.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, so I wonder why the bill also aims at Android. (Although Android One may be an exception, I think Google was trying to close down sideloads.)
That being said, all the competing stores for Android are terrible. The Amazon Store is small, often out of date, and full of spam and questionable apps. APKMirror is just a copy of the Google Store. F-Droid does at least serve an open source nice that is distinct. All other stores are strictly worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Apple (Score:1)
1. Looks to be a correlation between a politican and the people they represent. 2. Politicians are not great at being sneaky. 3. Parler is not Trump. Neither was it hate; hate speech was always modded off the platform --in spite of what the msm fed you. Parler represents resistence to the mass suppression of free speech.
If people want to talk about election results they should be able to. D'uh. Open platform like Parler allows for audit, so it's easy for police to police it should some nimwits strive for vi
Re: (Score:2)
Android has always allowed competing app stores, and you can even change a security setting yourself and just download apps directly from the web (just like how it works on a real computer). Amazingly, the sky has not fallen. In the face of Android already proving it can work, Apple's argument is just control freak bullshit.
One thing that might be good to do is to get Apple customer's input on this.
What is being lost by not allowing them to install software from anywhere?
Do they care? The customers I know rather like the vetting and the one stop shopping.
As for Android - I believe that if you want to install software from a North Korean website that you know harvests your credit card info, well, go ahead. It's a different culture.
Re: Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
As an Apple customer, advocate, and stockholder I want device security, privacy, and choice. Parler wasn't booted for any of those reasons. Apple made a huge tactical error IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
Parler got booted because they were hosting illegal content (death threats) and when notified refused to remove said content.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes Uncle Sam has to get out the belt, because businesses don't always play fair. See the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act [wikipedia.org], as an example from the automotive industry.
While I don't disagree about the value of regulation and trust-busting in preserving a healthy free market, it's really astonishing to see the political reorganization happening in real time right in front of our eyes. We see the right wing arguing for tariffs and trying to use government power to directly control business policies and even shut them down directly (see TikTok), while we see major companies from every sector coming out in rejection of right-wing authoritarianism, standing up for environmenta
Android is built to better contain untrusted apps (Score:4, Informative)
By comparison, with Android, the following protections are applied:
* Separate UIDs per application (so all UNIX-style DAC applies)
* Separate GIDs per permission (so the process has to be in specific groups)
* A fully fleshed out SELinux policy to constrain every process regardless of DAC
* seccomp-bpf system call restrictions on much newer Android versions block unnecessary system calls
I regularly crap on Linux for its poor IO scheduling and responsiveness under load but unlike iOS, Android uses multiple overlapping layers to constrain apps even when they are known to be malicious. iOS by comparison depends upon centralised controls by Apple to work properly.
Re: (Score:3)
iOS apps have to be vetted because there's only one proper layer of protection on iOS to stop apps from misbehaving. The iOS Sandbox provides all of the constraints using predefined mandatory access controls and a few helper processes. Any mistakes in this layer will cause a compromise across all apps. You can see how flimsy this can be by examining the large list of things Apple does not allow in sandboxed apps. Apple's sandbox is fantastic on macOS but is overstretched on iOS/iPadOS. Apple has every reason to be paranoid. By comparison, with Android, the following protections are applied: * Separate UIDs per application (so all UNIX-style DAC applies) * Separate GIDs per permission (so the process has to be in specific groups) * A fully fleshed out SELinux policy to constrain every process regardless of DAC * seccomp-bpf system call restrictions on much newer Android versions block unnecessary system calls I regularly crap on Linux for its poor IO scheduling and responsiveness under load but unlike iOS, Android uses multiple overlapping layers to constrain apps even when they are known to be malicious. iOS by comparison depends upon centralised controls by Apple to work properly.
Please explain to me then, kind sir, why my friends and coworkers Android phones are always ending up with spyware and miners and shit on them, while my friends, family and coworkers with iPhones simply don't understand why this situation exists to begin with? The only thing I can come up with is a No True Scotsman - all these phones must just be shitty Android phones and thus aren't representative of the One True Android that apparently "proves that the market forces work as intended" by the Good People th
Re: Android is built to better contain untrusted a (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of legi
Re: Apple (Score:2)